Last 21 days of July vs first 21 of August. You wont find a bigger turn around. Consequently AGW crowd has to run to the 4% of the globe that has gotten hot in parts of Europe. Why doesnt that surprise me
That being said, the nations heartland will have a warm September before cold shots starting pushing into the pattern in October and November, with a dramatic turn possible again then.. but one with more staying power ( I am talking against averages)
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
Recent Comments
- arn on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Gordon Vigurs on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Gordon Vigurs on AI Climate Math
- Greg in NZ on AI Math
- Greg in NZ on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- conrad ziefle on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Peter Carroll on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Peter Carroll on AI Climate Math
- dm on AI Climate Math
Where’s your ‘predicted’ late August ‘balmy’ period Joe?
With all due respect, what does your question have to do with Mr. Bastardi’s point about the turnaround to date?
With respect to his other point, I expect both GISS and NCDC to come in above average globally for August (both against their base period and against the 1981-2010 climatology).
Hi Don , I also expect GISS and NCDC to come in above average due to their adjustmants , homogenizations , and all the other cheap tricks they use in order to keep their scam going. If they wanted good honest readings they would use their new state of the art network . You know , the one known as USCRN the climate research network. But they don’t want to use it because it doesn’t allow or require adjustments . As it is good reliable raw data and it is showing true temperatures to be much lower than their adjusted versions . I already know one of your arguements ; that the stations have only been operating four years and have no base . But that doesn’t fly because the temperature sites are pristine in their setup and very accurate. We can now see that UHI plays a far stronger role in distorting the temperature readings of the old network and that the adjustments the warmist scientists are making to the data are in the wrong direction and should be down instead of up . But of course that blows the agw scam out of the water .
It was 97 in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday and 98 in Columbia, MO. So I would say Joe hit the nail on the head with his predicted warmup for this week.
My point is that Joe Bastardi ‘predicted’ a ‘balmy’ period August 21 – 29. It didn’t happen. Now he says it will be all of September, in the nation’s ‘Heartland'(whatever that means.) Why has he changed his forecast? Was the original forecast ‘balmy period’ a mistake? Why should we believe him?
Show us your forecast Method Joe,we may be able to help.
NCEP is forecasting a warmup this week.
With all due respect, Steve, Don, John, et al:
We have got to stop picking and choosing single weather “events” and trying to shove them into some kind of climate pigeonhole. The sum total of myriads of weather events, taken over decades, resolve into climate, while the pigeon brains (remember who pigeonholes were created for) jump on any weather event and make broad, sweeping climate generalizations based upon them.
Please don’t fall into that trap!!! [ it’s designed to catch pigeon-beaks! ].
I somewhat disagree, Tom. I understand why there is a downside, but still, AGW and CAGW hypotheses live or die based on their predictions, some of which are very short term. It may not be scientific to make short-term predictions and relate them with high confidence and precision to longer-term climate, but we don’t get to make their predictions for them, do we?
Also, it is possible to smooth global weather noise over a short period following a prediction, and report how close to the predicted trend events are. I agree it’s far from the ideal way to evaluate a climate prediction, but in the absence of fair, scientific play by the other side, failing to talk about it means that they will monopolize the public’s attention on those particular aspects, and we know they will twist the data and the interpretations of the data, with errors trending only in one direction — toward validation of their predictions, while totally ignoring any deviations away from the predicted trend. The public will only know about such deviations away if we tell them. And when it comes time to make political and policy decisions, would it be a surprise if the decisions are made based solely on what has been placed before them on the table, rather than on doing one’s own homework to get all the facts? There are a lot of politicians out there today who will simply not go looking for the truth about climate science. Either it’s placed in front of them, or they consider it to be irrelevant — whereupon the opposition’s version of events becomes the “only” complete version that exists, in their mind. Is that how we want this to play out? Not I.
One final thought: if the present paradigm of alarmists has shifted to include within CAGW the idea of “exteme weather events” irrespective of temperature (which it clearly has), how do we falsify this claim other than by showing that events of the present are not pushing out the boundaries of what is to be considered “normal” or “typical”, whether for temperature or for other extremes, e.g. precipitation, windstorms, or ice extent?
For these reasons, I believe that the analysis of single weather events in a “climatic” context is an important part of the picture, since it has been and surely will continue to be used pre-emptively by our opponents, whether we respond or not.
RTF
Glad you said “…somewhat disagree,…” I spend much time educating people on the difference between Climate and Weather. If the AGW crowd tries to gloss over the difference, we really shouldn’t put our foot in that trap – rather let them keep their foot in their mouth!
Tom,
Do bear in mind that we face an enemy that will brazenly overwrite the instrumental record and then look the public dead-set in the eye, and without twitching a muscle, tell them it isn’t true, they didn’t do that.
To make sure that my position is very clear to all, by no means am I suggesting that we knowingly misrepresent any weather situation to try to win the climate debate. But there is sometimes more than one way of characterizing a situation, and when the opponent is determined to win at any cost, I suggest that it is not necessarily always out of order to show another perspective that accepts for the sake of argument a known-to-be-spurious definition of “climate” for the purpose of discrediting the opponent’s perspective.
Of course it’s a trap. I merely humbly suggest that the whole debate is a kind of trap in which every option of responding to their weather-event spinning (including the option of arguing irrelevance) has a way it can be turned against us; but I think that a strategy that includes responding to all weather-event garbage with a response that includes a demonstration of selection bias which implicitly assumes the relevance of the selected weather event to “climate” is the least-bad trap for us. If we gotta step in a trap, let it be the least-bad trap possible. I of course do not speak for Steven in this or any other matter.
Cheers,
Richard
I’m pleased to see the obvious intelligence in your thought process. For what its is worth, I try to stay on the “High Road” as much as possible, but paraphrasing Dickens, have used your “boiling them in their own pudding” from time to time too. [ Its very refreshing when I get a chance to do it too!!! ]
Thank you sir. The sentiment is mutual. Agreed about the high road, and also the pudding.
RTF
@tomwys, Please tell me when climate ceased to be a statistical summary of previously realized weather using an arbitrary baseline?
Problem is that most have the “baseline” way too short. Decades are minimal; centuries far better; millennia too long!
It is definitely warming up again in E Tenn.
Joe is talking about weather conditions and he got the “Balmy” part right. I would have preferred the low eighties or high seventies, but we did have a nice reprieve from the warmer temperatures.
This feels like early fall rather than late summer. 85 is not unheard of on thanksgiving day.